United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge Northern
District of Iowa
March 23, 2018, the above-named defendant Joe Ramon
Santillan, by consent (Doc. 33), appeared before the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a
conditional plea of guilty to Counts One and Four of the
Indictment (Doc. 2). After cautioning and examining defendant
under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule
11, the Court determined that the guilty pleas were
knowledgeable and voluntary, and the offenses charged were
supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of
the essential elements of the offenses. The Court therefore
RECOMMENDS that the pleas of guilty be
accepted and defendant be adjudged guilty.
commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, defendant was placed
under oath and advised that if defendant answered any
questions falsely, defendant could be prosecuted for perjury
or for making a false statement. Defendant also was advised
that in any such prosecution, the Government could use
against defendant any statements made under oath.
Court asked a number of questions to ensure defendant's
mental capacity to enter a plea. Defendant stated
defendant's full name, age, and extent of schooling. The
Court inquired into defendant's history of mental illness
and addiction to narcotic drugs.
Court further inquired into whether defendant was under the
influence of any drug, medication, or alcoholic beverage at
the time of the plea hearing. From this inquiry, the Court
determined that defendant was not suffering from any mental
disability that would impair defendant's ability to make
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to the
acknowledged that defendant had received a copy of the
Indictment, and had fully discussed these charges with
Court determined that defendant was pleading guilty under a
plea agreement with the Government. After confirming that a
copy of the written plea agreement was in front of defendant
and defendant's counsel, the Court determined that
defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement. The
Court summarized the plea agreement, and made certain
defendant understood its terms.
Court explained to defendant that because the plea agreement
provided for dismissal of charges, if defendant pleaded
guilty, a presentence report would be prepared and a district
judge would consider whether or not to accept the plea
agreement. If the district judge decided to reject the plea
agreement, then defendant would have an opportunity to
withdraw the pleas of guilty and change them to not guilty.
was advised also that after the pleas were accepted,
defendant would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a
later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from
what defendant or defendant's counsel anticipated.
Court summarized the charges against defendant, and listed
the elements of the crime. The Court determined that
defendant understood each and every element of the crime, and
defendant's counsel confirmed that defendant understood
each and every element of the crime charged.
Court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all
elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the
Indictment to which defendant was pleading guilty.
Court advised defendant of the consequences of each plea,
including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and term of
respect to Count One (1), defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $20, 000, 000; the maximum term of
imprisonment is life; the mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment is twenty (20) years; the maximum period of
supervised release is life; and the minimum period of
supervised release is ten (10) years.
respect to Count Four (4), defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment
is life; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is five
(5) years; and ...